taverna-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From alaninmcr <alanin...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Taverna Player provenance
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2014 16:08:30 GMT
On 01/12/2014 15:43, Nikos Minadakis wrote:
> Hello Stian and Everyone,
>
> sorry for the delay of my answer but I just found out than I had to send
> this email :P
>
> So, my main questions as you already mentioned are the following:
>
> 1) Can we track the provenance of data by using Taverna?
>
> You already answered to this and added that:
> - Portal is not capturing who is doing which interaction so if the run
> is shared with multiple people that might be something
> additional to add.

Interesting idea. The additional information could be fed back on the 
ATOM feed and then saved by the interaction service.

This requires thought as workflow runs and their interactions will not 
always be done from a portal. In addition to running directly from the 
Taverna Workbench, they could be called from IPython Notebook for example.

> -I checked, and the BioVel Portal is not yet using the version of
> Taverna Server that allows capturing/export of Provenance (2.5.4) -
> but is planning that upgrade soon.

Rob tells me that the portal is running with the 2.5.4 server. The 
provenance may not be exposed in the UI though.

> So, this is fine by me and I would like to ask you if it is possible to
> be more specific for the versions that will support such functionalities.

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

> 2) Can I use my own provenance Schema in case I don't want to use
> PROV-O? (CRM digital is an example, and we are using it in FORTH)

I doubt that would be possible. Stian can give a more precise answer.

> 3) To be more specific with my requirements.
> I want to use taverna in order to implement a complex scientific
> workflow that supports interactions from different Actors and Institutions.
>
> So lets consider that that the workflow consists of 3 steps A-B-C (in
> real life they are much more) and 2 Institutions will interact. In1 and In3
>
> In1 will start with step A. When this step finishes In2 will be informed
> automatically and will continue with Step B. When step B is finished In1
> will be automatically informed in order to continue with step C and
> finish the workflow. Now imagine this carried out by 20 institutions and
> hundreds of steps.
>
> As a result we should be able to know who did what and when. Not only
> for the concrete steps but even for the actions that are done internally
> in each institution (data provenance, runs, etc etc). And cause of the
> specializations of the actions PROV-O may not be enough for tracking
> such provenance, so another schema may be used for it.

Additional information could probably be annotated. Stian can give more 
details of that.

> Off course it would be great as a final goal to be able to go back. So,
> to start from the final product of the execution and by following the
> provenance information to be able to do as many steps back as needed and
> to extract the previous results.
>
> My final questions is: Is Taverna capable of fulfilling such a
> requirement? And of course if not, to what degree does it support it,
> and what effort does it need to be extended?

The interactions do not currently capture "who did it" - so that would 
not be possible at the moment.

With regard to going upstream and looking at the preceding results, that 
is currently possible. That is how Taverna shows the intermediate 
results. It may require SPARQL queries to obtain the information you 
want. Do you have examples?

> If I could have an answer by the end of this week it would be great
> since I will report it in a new project's meeting next week.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nikos

Alan

Mime
View raw message